Truth News Australia

Subscribe to TNRA

Complete Withdrawal of Support by Richard Gage, AIA, for CIT’s “National Security Alert”

10 February 2011 | Permalink | comments: 0

Categories: [ 9/11 Truth Movement ]

http://visibility911.com/blog/?p=1905

Richard Gage | 8 Feb 2011

I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed).  These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station.  Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.  I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue.  I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

After making my statement I became aware of more details of the CIT witness accounts as well as the rest of the compelling eyewitness testimony that is available. The vast majority of eyewitness accounts refute the CIT flyover conclusion, as they entail that the plane hit the Pentagon or was flying so low it could not miss.
I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon.  It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of  CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon.  Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion.  I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all.  In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, blogs, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters.  Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.

Relevant critiques of CIT and their National Security Alert include:
Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert”, Chris Sarns, Feb 5, 2011
9/11 Pentagon Witnesses:  They Saw the Plane Hit the Pentagon, Video by Jeff Hill, June 14, 2010
Overwhelming Evidence of Insider Complicity, David Chandler and Jon Cole, Dec 2010
“Debating” What Hit the Pentagon by Exaggeration, Name-calling, and Threats, Gregg Roberts, Jan 2011

And critiques that examine CIT’s earlier work “Pentacon” are helpful as well:
Google Earth Exposes Pentagon Flyover Farce or Critiquing PentaCon ,  by Jim Hoffman, July 2009
To Con a Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’, Victoria Ashley, July 2009

Relevant peer-reviewed papers (posted on Journalof911Studies.com):
Flight AA77 on 9/11: New FDR Analysis Supports the Official Flight Path Leading to Impact with the Pentagon, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.) and Warren Stutt, (B.Sc.(Hons.) Comp. Sci.)  January 2011
What hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth, Frank Legge, (B.Sc.(Hons.), Ph.D.), July 2009 (updated Feb 2010)

There was a time in the four years after 9/11 when I simply assumed that the official story of the destruction of the WTC Twin Towers on 9/11 was true.  One could say that I “endorsed” the official story based on what I knew at the time, but as I learned more, my opinion of what happened to those buildings evolved radically. John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution has occurred in relation to my view of CIT’s work.

I strongly recommend that people who care to research what happened at the Pentagon take personal responsibility for forming their own conclusions by acquainting themselves with a wide range of analysis done by people who have come before them rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure.  Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind.

One of the authors cited above, Frank Legge, PhD., admonishes us to adopt a “prudent approach” to the Pentagon piece of the 9/11 puzzle.  In the end he wisely advocates the “precautionary principle” which is to “assert only what we can truly know,” given the contradictory evidence, misinformation, disinformation, and lack of information from official sources, and the difficulty in verifying much of it, years after the fact and with inadequate resources.

Legge concludes that there is prima facie evidence that “the official explanation of the event at the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists. He concludes as well this negative hypothesis: that there is “no proof that a 757 did not hit the Pentagon.”  And, since officials are holding the cards (videos) as to what did or didn’t hit the Pentagon, Dr. Legge’s recommendation is that investigators “take care to avoid publicly asserting that the 757 did not hit the Pentagon”.
We can all agree that no hijacked plane should have been able to violate the airspace of our nation’s capital and hit the headquarters of the most sophisticated defense system in the world – an hour and a half after the assault began on the Twin Towers.

The 9/11 Truth movement will be more likely to succeed in its effort to educate the public about the Pentagon by focusing on those areas of greatest agreement.

Comments

Enter comments below, then click Submit:

Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below:


Listen Live

Recent Comments

Leonard Clampett,

just ‘ad hominem’ attacks, no discussion of my arguments?

Did you read up about RHI and RHW? About the products of combustion of hydrocarbons?

You can find a lot of information about these things on the Internet. In fact, that’s how I learned a lot: looking for data and facts when researching conspiracy claims.

This also as an additional reply to Cris:

You don’t need personal input from experts to debunk the central (ever-repeating) claims of conspiracy theorists. There are several thorough and earnest communities that collect arguments - with references! - to counter these claims.

Chemtrail proponents are often passionate and eager to spread their view. Why should debunkers be different?
My personal motivation is that I am worried about the present state of the Enlighentment - scientific and critical thinking seems to be under attack from various belief systems.

Oh, and to Leonard Clampett: if you are so fixated on identities, will it change your position if I give you my full name? Let’s see - it’s “Josua Dietze”, and if you google it with quotes, you will find only references to me.

Now, what does that change?

By Josh on 2014 07 27 - 19:30:49
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

I would never claim that we have nothing to worry about, even if there is no evidence for chemtrails. I find it terrifying how fast we humans are changing the surface and the atmosphere of our planet, just by the sum of our activities. I am not optimistic about the view that nature will balance all this somehow sometime.

Back to the claims of metal spraying:

So far, all reports cited for these claims refer to testing on the ground. I include rain water, because rain drops collect dust from the lower altitude levels. Also, wind will carry dust into open collection containers that are left outside for a while.

The test method used for all the tests - plasma chromatography - can not make a difference between metals bound in compounds (like Aluminum as a component of clay) and free/metallic elements, which would indeed be toxic in higher levels. So if your test sample contains dust in any form, your test results will show metals - even if you had harmless mineral grains before. For the test, they are ‘cracked’ to their components by immense heat.

Unfortunately, this bit of information is getting lost in all the claims of toxic spraying.
So what we have is mainly misinterpretation, which is repeated over and over again.

The same is true for blood tests where the term “reporting limit” in the lab sheets is commonly misread as “highest allowed level” which must be reported to authorities - whereas in reality it is the smallest level that can reasonably be reported at all. So it’s in fact the technical detection minimum.

The blood tests I have seen so far - those that were actually released by concerned people - are showing normal levels.

Regarding metallic Aluminum in the soil:

I’m sure that as a farmer you know how acidification can change the chemical composition of soil. There are still countries that are blowing sulfur into the atmosphere which causes acid rain, which in turn raises the level of Aluminum. Also, there are areas where this level was always higher than elsewhere. Monsanto targetting these potential markets is just plain capitalism (not that I like them).

BTW, it took me a while for my first reply because the automatic notification from the TRNA site did somehow not work. I was only notified when Bob McDonld posted.

By Josh on 2014 07 27 - 18:58:52
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Thank you for the good writeup. It if truth be told used to be a entertainment
account it. Look complex to far brought agreeable from you!
By the way, how can we be in contact?

By best baby monitors 2014 on 2014 07 27 - 10:52:41
From the entry 'Schapelle Corby: drug courier or political prisoner?'.

Thank you for the good writeup. It if truth be told used to be a entertainment account it.
Look complex to far brought agreeable from you! By the way, how
can we be in contact?

By best baby monitors 2014 on 2014 07 27 - 10:52:35
From the entry 'Schapelle Corby: drug courier or political prisoner?'.

Interesting response from JOSH ANONYMOUS, the glider pilot of no experience of that of which claims vast knowledge, most probably after he consulted numerous text books, plus his handlers as to how to respond. It did take some time to get back so he must have trawled through a lot of books to try to find information that could suit his claims. No need for that JOSH as common sense and knowledge you would have should suffice. You remind me of GEOFF SEENEY, now deputy premier of Queensland, who, when told about chemtrails, responded with the most inane claims that he knew how aircraft worked as he had seen them taking off from Rockhampton airport and applying his school-boy science had solved the problem. Two lessons learned from my youth, “never argue with idiots as they have had far more experience at it than you”, and “when you throw a pebble into a chook yard you will always know which one you hit”.
JOSH, your claims confirm to me that you are either exceptionally egotistic, with a constant need to support your self esteem, or are a simple minded stooge, one of the useful tools of the elite, i.e. useful idiots, or have some personal agenda probably tied to your insecurity. I am most certainly glad that you never did any maintenance work on any aircraft I flew. You won’t hear from me again, so you can live your dreams in conjunction with HEREWARD FENTON (if that is his real name) spreading your imaginings through the electrons on the Internet. Try not to fool people, because I can assure you you cannot fool all the people all the time. (Old proverb, old son) and think about why it is you seem so persistent in wanting to support and promote the elite with their agendas.
Ciao,
LEONARD CLAMPETT not an anonymous troll.

By Leonard Clampett on 2014 07 26 - 12:01:50
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

You certainly appear astute Josh. What I can’t figure is the methodology behind your thinking. If you are correct and no Barium, Aluminium, Strontium, vaccination components and a plethora of other nasties are never released in the air above us by the Chemtrail airforce then we have nothing to worry about and life will go as it always has: the self regulating biosphere will simply bring the small man made changes back into balance.
If I am right about the junk being spewed out, then the biosphere will most likely collapse, only to be remediated after we and most higher life forms are composted due to our inaction against the Elite that rule We the Cattle by deception and thuggery.
Let us look at just 2 components: Barium and Aluminium. Barium is an endocrine disruptor, shuts down the sodium/potassium pump that is vital to the survival of each of your cells, is destructive to the soil food web, etc, Aluminium has at least as many problems and strangely enough Monsatan has has developed a gene to deal with aluminium toxicity in the soil: http://www.geoengineeringwatch.org/chemtrails-killing-organic-crops-monsantos-gmo-seeds-thrive/ . How did they know there was going to be too much Aluminium in the soil if they did not know we are being sprayed with it?
You take a while to answer Josh. Is that because you have to go to your minders to glean information about what to write.  Are you being paid? Why don’t you tell us who you are? Are you an NWO employee?
Now are you going to get a PHD microbiologist, a PHD naturopath, an soil chemist, a soil physicist, etc. that have sold their souls, to help you weave misinformation? Most either listen, learn and intelligently discuss or protect their well paid posteriors with silence.
By the way a commercial jet pilot that thought I was exaggerating about the amount of CTs here was surprised to see how much activity there was when rain likely here.
For the record, stuff all when there is no forecast rain and when rain is likely there are often over 50(over the period of a day) in the visible sky in all directions and paterns, even circles and short heaps of short runs.
We are lucky to get 1 jet a day visible here normally. Explain that?
Selah
Cris

By Cris on 2014 07 26 - 10:28:03
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Bob McDonld,

I for my part do not “deny chemtrails”. I merely point out how weak the evidence is for them to exist.

Can you pick one of the “lies” that you are referring to, and argue why it is actually a lie? Preferably with evidence?

By Josh on 2014 07 26 - 02:26:02
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Cris,

I am sure your weather observations are sound. However, I am also pretty sure that there is plenty of air traffic even when you don’t see it.
If the upper air conditions are not favorable to trail formation, it is very hard to spot tiny planes at 35000 ft. altitude.

Have a look at real-time flight tracking websites like flightaware.com and flightradar24.com, and go to your location on the map. There you can see actual flights crossing over your place, and then possibly go and look out for them with a pair of binoculars.

It is very true that contrails start to form particularly in the vicinity of weather fronts. That’s when it gets easy to spot the planes.
The reason is that these fronts tend to move up humid air to the cruising levels which makes trail formation more likely.

On other occasions there are just humid layers of air moving in. Contrails are known to trigger large-area haze occasionally, but they can also be just a byproduct with the haze forming anyway.

As for the changes in weather patterns, many people are seeing those around the globe. I’m sure you are aware that there is quite a number of possible explanations.

By Josh on 2014 07 26 - 02:18:22
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Leonard Clampett,
two points that you missed:

1. Relative humidity with respect to water is different from relative humidity with respect to ice.
Ice supersaturation - which is necessary for persistent contrail formation - sets in at less that 70 % RH (w.r. to water), if the temperature is at or below -40°C.

See page 3 in this paper:
http://www.mbw.ch/papers/RH_WMO.pdf

2. One ton of kerosene generates 1.3 tonnes of water - coming out of the jet engine as invisible vapor.
There is no magic required, the chemical process called “combustion” is sufficient.

Nobody claimed that planes carry water. The hydrogen is part of the kerosene molecules (which crack up during combustion), the oxygen comes from outside air. The chemical reaction creates water from both.

I’m truly at a loss why you won’t accept this. Ask the chemistry teacher of your kids or grandkids. Ask ANYONE who has some sound chemistry knowledge.

By Josh on 2014 07 26 - 01:46:38
From the entry 'Contrails dissipate quickly whereas chemtrails linger?'.

Another great show.

The very way the story of M777 was delivered to us complete with instantaneous finger pointing at putin was need for immediate concern. i am of the opinion that when this happens it indicates that a propaganda event is underway and in this case regardless of who did it, it had to be the enemy.

the enemy is at this time putin, because putin is a real leader and is outside of ‘their’ control. i wouldn’t like to live in russia, but i do find putin hilarious in his belligerence…

why do they do this? its probably because if they wait to see what evidence appears it might not point to who they want it to point to… this was definitely the case with the chemical attack in syria, however despite the propaganda, truthers and those in the alternative media imo stopped the nato attack.

what im suss about is why this happened in the first place, flying commercial airliners over warzones where both sides have access to these kinds of weapons is ridiculously stupid.

any way

keep up the good work

By rokbebop on 2014 07 25 - 22:45:29
From the entry 'War monger Tony Abbott recklessy accuses the Russian President over downed passenger plane'.

Categories